== Why is this an issue?

Using ``++string.Equals++`` to determine if a string is empty is significantly slower than using ``++string.IsNullOrEmpty()++`` or checking for ``++string.Length == 0++``. ``++string.IsNullOrEmpty()++`` is both clear and concise, and therefore preferred to laborious, error-prone, manual null- and emptiness-checking.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,csharp]
----
"".Equals(name); // Noncompliant
!name.Equals(""); // Noncompliant
name.Equals(string.Empty); // Noncompliant
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,csharp]
----
name != null && name.Length > 0 // Compliant but more error prone
!string.IsNullOrEmpty(name)
string.IsNullOrEmpty(name)
----


ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

include::message.adoc[]

'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

include::comments-and-links.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]